Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Distillers] Re: Rum!

Expand Messages
  • AuntyEthyl
    Matt, Thanx for the excellent rum posts.. Just one more question... (There s always one) De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies in the column, did
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 3, 2002
      Matt,

      Thanx for the excellent rum posts..

      Just one more question... (There's always one)
      De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies in
      the column, did they get placed in the bottom, top or
      spread throughout the column.?

      And yet another sneaky question.. any thoughts on what
      difference it would make having the scrubbies at top,
      bottom or spread out through the column, would make to
      the product.?

      AuntyEthyl



      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
      http://sports.yahoo.com
    • mattdistiller
      ... One? Or two? ;-) ... They were packed as normal, so there was an empty space at the top doing not much . ... Um.... Tony? ;-) My guess... If the
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
        > Just one more question... (There's always one)

        One? Or two? ;-)

        > De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies in
        > the column, did they get placed in the bottom, top or
        > spread throughout the column.?

        They were packed as normal, so there was an empty space at the top
        doing 'not much'.

        > And yet another sneaky question.. any thoughts on what
        > difference it would make having the scrubbies at top,
        > bottom or spread out through the column, would make to
        > the product.?

        Um.... Tony? ;-)

        My guess...

        If the scrubbers were spread over the whole column, I think the
        purity would be higher than if they were packed as 'normal', and so
        leaving an empty space. My logic for this,is that there is still a
        good surface area for reaction, and hence no 'wasted' space. In the
        normal packing, while the surface are is more per unit volume, it
        doesn't have the height.

        The empty space at the top or bottom in the 'normal' packing
        density.... I think the gap would be better at the top. At the
        bottom it becomes just a part of the boiler in effect, so therefor
        doesn't do anything. When the space is at the top, while there is
        no 'reaction' occuring at the top, there is space for the purified
        vapours to sit, and so I feel would be more use for it at the top
        than the bottom.

        That all said, I don't really know - Feel free to diagree with me!

        Matt (Bris)
      • Tony & Elle Ackland
        ... likewise, I d just be guessing. The theory doesn t help here. Can t really say whether the gap would be better top or bottom - you can dream up arguments
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
          > Um.... Tony? ;-)

          likewise, I'd just be guessing. The theory doesn't help here. Can't
          really say whether the gap would be better top or bottom - you can dream up
          arguments for either case.

          I'd rather that the remaining scrubbers were instead spread out more
          sparsely, to fill the volume. Its likely to give a lesser efficiency than
          a properly packed column, but might (??) be better than a half-n-half
          version, as its still encouraging the liquid to drip from spot to spot,
          rather than doing a big rush through the unpacked space. It also just
          gives a bit more physical space for any different species / concentrations
          to stay apart from each other.

          Coupled with this though has to be how much you've decreased the reflux
          ratio by - for an example, if you dudn't remove much packing, and kept the
          reflux rate high, you may not notice much "detuning". When I run my still
          for rum, I keep the same packing in it, but really knock back the reflux
          ratio heaps - like you - into the high 70's (C)

          Tony
          http://homedistiller.org
        • AuntyEthyl
          Hi again Matt, Thanx yet again for an excellent reply. I agree with what you said as far as de-tuned packing placement is concerned. I just had *one* more
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 4, 2002
            Hi again Matt,

            Thanx yet again for an excellent reply.

            I agree with what you said as far as de-tuned packing
            placement is concerned.

            I just had *one* more question..

            As column packing height has a direct correlation to
            the number of theoretical plates, what was the height
            of your packing in your 50mm column.?

            Cheers
            AuntyEthyl

            --- mattdistiller <distiller@...> wrote:
            >
            > > Just one more question... (There's always one)
            >
            > One? Or two? ;-)
            >
            > > De-Tuning. When you went from 18 to 12 scrubbies
            > in
            > > the column, did they get placed in the bottom, top
            > or
            > > spread throughout the column.?
            >
            > They were packed as normal, so there was an empty
            > space at the top
            > doing 'not much'.
            >
            > > And yet another sneaky question.. any thoughts on
            > what
            > > difference it would make having the scrubbies at
            > top,
            > > bottom or spread out through the column, would
            > make to
            > > the product.?
            >
            > Um.... Tony? ;-)
            >
            > My guess...
            >
            > If the scrubbers were spread over the whole column,
            > I think the
            > purity would be higher than if they were packed as
            > 'normal', and so
            > leaving an empty space. My logic for this,is that
            > there is still a
            > good surface area for reaction, and hence no
            > 'wasted' space. In the
            > normal packing, while the surface are is more per
            > unit volume, it
            > doesn't have the height.
            >
            > The empty space at the top or bottom in the 'normal'
            > packing
            > density.... I think the gap would be better at the
            > top. At the
            > bottom it becomes just a part of the boiler in
            > effect, so therefor
            > doesn't do anything. When the space is at the top,
            > while there is
            > no 'reaction' occuring at the top, there is space
            > for the purified
            > vapours to sit, and so I feel would be more use for
            > it at the top
            > than the bottom.
            >
            > That all said, I don't really know - Feel free to
            > diagree with me!
            >
            > Matt (Bris)
            >
            >


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
            http://sports.yahoo.com
          • mattdistiller
            I replied, but the email seems to have got lost in the ether, so I will try again. ... No problems - I am only shooting from the hip though! ... Just one? ;-)
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 5, 2002
              I replied, but the email seems to have got lost in the ether, so I
              will try again.

              > Thanx yet again for an excellent reply.

              No problems - I am only shooting from the hip though!

              > I just had *one* more question..

              Just one? ;-)

              > As column packing height has a direct correlation to
              > the number of theoretical plates, what was the height
              > of your packing in your 50mm column.?

              Normally, for vodka, my column is packed to 1.2 m with 18 large
              scrubbers. For the 'de-tuned' run, it is 0.9m with 12 scrubbers.

              I think not only is the packed height important, but also the packed
              density. If it is assumed that all s/s scrubbers have similar thread
              sizes, this can easily be calculated by weighing the scrubbers, and
              calculating the volume of the packed height. Density=weight/volume.
              If the assumption that all s/s scrubbers have similar thread sizes is
              true, then the density is directly proportional to the surface area,
              but a lot easier to calculate!

              My scrubbers weigh 14.1g each (I just weighed them all and divided it
              out), so 18 scrubbers weigh 0.2546kg and 12 scrubbers weigh 0.1697kg.

              The volume of the 50mm column is easy = pi * r^2 * height
              1.2m - volume=0.002356 m^3
              0.9m - volume=0.001767 m^3

              So the density=weight/volume:
              1.2m with 18 scrubbers = 108.1 kg/m^3
              0.9m with 12 scrubbers = 96.1 kg/m^3

              So, in my case, the 1.2m packing height, whilst being higher packed,
              is also more densely packed (=more surface area) - I guess because
              the weight of the scrubbers compress the ones below? Whatever the
              reason, the difference is over 10%, so there could definitely be an
              effect.

              I see a really neat experiment that could be done here, with the same
              packed height column, and different densities (=surface area) of
              scrubbers. There has to be an optimal packing density (=surface
              area), which would probably be fairly easy to work out through
              experimentation.

              OK. Enough from me. I hope that answers your question in a long
              handed way!

              Matt (Bris)
            • Tony & Elle Ackland
              ... Hurray ! something a bit more precise than the breath through test Tony
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 6, 2002
                > I see a really neat experiment that could be done here, with the same
                > packed height column, and different densities (=surface area) of
                > scrubbers. There has to be an optimal packing density (=surface
                > area), which would probably be fairly easy to work out through
                > experimentation.

                Hurray ! something a bit more precise than the "breath through" test

                Tony
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.